Yes, in some ways.

Caesar was something of a despot who had taken over many nations and was trying to get more under his control. He broadened the scope of the Roman Empire and did good that way. However, his time was drawing to a close and the empire needed a new way and a new leader.

We seem to ignore how bad The Republic was to begin with!

To simply quote from other sources:In the first century BC, buying the votes of Roman citizens has become a common practice, phenomenon highlighted by multiplying, although without much success, the laws that tried to dispute it. The temptation to buy the votes of citizens that brought the power was much greater than the fear of legal sanctions. This form of corruption was manifested especially in the case of consuls. The representatives of authorities were making the contacts, conducting the negotiations and sharing the final gains. Size amounts paid by the openly corrupt and corrupting candidates for a single vote could sometimes provoke the increase of the interest rate on the financially market. The amount of the paid sum was impressive, but also advantages in choosing an important function were not to be neglected, covering the investment abundantly.

Military successes were important to gaining and maintaining political power within Rome; thus, politics resulted in pressure to continue expansion into new territories. But gaining a reputation as a good military leader was more important to an ambitious Roman than sound administration of the new provinces. (In one famous example of administrative abuse, the people in Sicily were so upset by the corruption of their Roman governor that, when his term was over, they sued him in the Roman courts, with Cicero acting as the Sicilians' advocate.)

Political rivalries degenerated into civil disorder when partisan groups formed to support, sometimes with violence, their particular candidate for the yearly elections in Rome. No one attempted even to hide electoral bribery. Reversing one's position was commonplace, and a promise made today could not be expected to be honored tomorrow.

Rome was not a democratic utopia that can be made out by others, but instead a squabbling nation of oligarchs, as Aristotle predicted democracies fall into. We ought to learn the lessons of the Roman Empire, and fix our democracies with safeguards from partisan lobbying and reason over military victory.

The assassination of Caesar turned him into a martyr.

Caesar without the assassination may have been judged by history very differently. He may have been seen as a tyrant, and his policies, as are the policies of any leader with a long track record, may have evoked justifiable criticism. However, because he was assassinated, we will never know. Instead, we know Caesar for the victories he earned in battle, for his deft political outmaneuvering of opponents originally endowed with much greater stature, and for securing his legacy via Octavian. The very name of Caesar evokes these aspects, without any of the negatives commonly associated with a tyrant.

Caesar was the Shit

Premise 1 : Caesar Was The Shit

Premise 2: Caesar was betrayed, or we would be in flying cars now, as well as space exploration. Caesar had massive Research and Development systems in the works when he was slain mercilessly by his friends.

He had a great deal of potential for Rome

I think Caesar's death was disadvantageous because he had so much potential and so much to give Rome and its citizens. With Caesars death the Empire collapsed and weakened the boarders. It was beneficial as well because of the lesson learnt was so strong that there is still debate about it.

No - In Fact, His Assassination Made the Roman Republic Worse Off

I think the Roman Republic would have benefitted if Caesar had not even come to power, but assassinating him set the stage for the overthrow of the Republic. Caesar's assassination created great animosity between the Senate and the lower and middle classes, led by Mark Antony and Augustus (then Octavian), which resulted in Civil War between the Senate (led by Brutus and Cassius) against the Second Triumvirate (Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus), which resulted in the Triumvirate's victory at Philippi. This caused a power vacuum that Antony, along with Cleopatra filled, until they were ousted after the Battle of Actium. Overall, Caesar's assassination led to a lot of civil strife that could have been thwarted if Caesar hold been allowed to establish a succession line.

Also, Caesar had plans to attack Parthia, which were abandoned after his assassination. A successful campaign against the Parthians would have eliminated a major source of trouble later on in the empire's history. Also, the Germanic tribes could have been subdued after the Parthian campaign, which would have eliminated all major problems until the Huns came. As a result of Caesar's assassination, neither of these campaigns were successful, which they could have been if Caesar had still been alive to lead them.

Overall, Caesar's assassination created civil strife and weak borders, and a smoother reign of succession to an Empire could have been achieved if he had created a line of succession. However, the Republic would have been better off if Caesar hadn't been around in the first place.

No - it didn't change anything

Assassinating Caesar didn't change anything. The Roman Republic had been embroiled in civil wars for a couple generations before Julius Caesar rose to power, and after his death it simply descended back into civil war. A generation after that, and Rome once again had an emperor in Augustus. All the assassination did was forestall the inevitable and set Rome up for another cycle of violence.

Perhaps things could've been different if the assassins put as much thought into who would run the empire after his death, and arranged for a quick and smooth succession plan. Even then I am doubtful. The senate was too corrupt and the military had grown too strong and self-serving by then. Strong rule by one person with military backing was probably the only stable form of government by then.

An Important Leader

I personally think Julius Caesar could establish further Roman domination and power across Europe. In addition, he was a man of the people and well liked in Rome with thinly exception being political rivals and their allies. That's not to say Rome was doing well without Caesar, but that it could have done far better with him to extend themselves further into world.